A little background reading

In addition to their clerical education, many of those in authority in the Archdiocese had civil law degrees or occupied prestigious appointments in third level education…Despite their participation in civil society, it was not until late 1995 that officials of the Archdiocese first began to notify the civil authorities of complaints of clerical child sexual abuse. In this context it is significant, in the Commission’s view, that every bishop’s primary loyalty is to the Church itself. At his consecration every bishop, as well as making a profession of faith, must take an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See. [p 7]

1.27 Most officials in the Archdiocese were, however, greatly exercised by the provisions of canon law which deal with secrecy. It was often spoken of as a reason for not informing the Gardaí about known criminal offences.

1.28 A similar ‘culture of secrecy’ was identified by the Attorney General for Massachusetts in his report on child sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese.5 In the case of that diocese, as in the case of Dublin, secrecy “protected the institution at the expense of children.” [p 8]

the highest priority was the protection of the reputation of the institution and the reputation of priests. The moving around of offending clerics with little or no disclosure of their past is illustrative of this. [p 9]

Another consequence of the obsessive concern with secrecy and the avoidance of scandal was the failure of successive Archbishops and bishops to report complaints to the Gardaí prior to 1996. The Archbishops, bishops and other officials cannot claim that they did not know that child sexual abuse was a crime. As citizens of the State, they have the same obligations as all other citizens to uphold the law and report serious crimes to the authorities. [p 9]

As can be seen clearly from the case histories, there is no doubt that the reaction of Church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse in the early years of the Commission’s remit was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest’s problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. [p 10]

And so on. I recommend reading the first 28 pages, at least, if you haven’t already. The whole horrible mess is laid out there. They protected the institution at the expense of raped children.

Related posts

17 Responses to “A little background reading”

Does anyone know, is it actually a crime in Eire not to report these serious crimes to the Giardia? Would reporting them to church authorites actually count as fulfilling a duty to report them under their civil law?

“Does anyone know, is it actually a crime in Eire not to report these serious crimes to the Gardi?”

As far as I know its not illegal now to fail to report knowledge of child rape to the Irish police. It was, however, illegal at the time that Brady made the two victims swear an oath of silence but the law was quietly changed in the meantime, dropping this charge.

Steve:”The end result is that some proportion of the child rapists of one generation become the bishops, cardinals and popes of the next.”

I think the point isn’t the child rapist priests; the point is the priests and bishops who DEAL with the child rapist priests and their organisational process. The response of internal discipline and organisational cover-up in particular is the issue.

How can anyone keep a straight face while claiming that the Catholic church doesn’t do all it can to protect children from abuse? Why, where I live they are currently conducting a high-profile political campaign to ensure that homosexual couples be prevented from adopting children! What is that if not proof of their good and moral intentions?

ChrisPer “I think the point isn’t the child rapist priests; the point is the priests and bishops who DEAL with the child rapist priests …”

I agree but it is important to realize that a good proportion of those dealing with the rapists must already be compromised. We have rapists and those complicit with rapists dealing with the newest crop.

So this is more than just protecting the church, they are fighting for their own lives. This must be taken into account.

For example, does this view explain the behaviour of the current pope given the revelations of his personal involvement in moving a rapist priest to a new location rather than reporting him to civil authorities.

If they are really interested in protecting the church, they must have realized that this policy of cover up was doomed to failure and ultimately more harmful to the church than cooperation with civil authorities.

A reasonable assumption is that there is some other factor involved.

It will only take the exposure of the personal involvement a few more bishops & cardinals to perhaps give the rotten, tottering edifice of the church the push it needs to slide into oblivion.

ChrisPer: “I think the point isn’t the child rapist priests; the point is the priests and bishops who DEAL with the child rapist priests and their organisational process. The response of internal discipline and organisational cover-up in particular is the issue.”

Of course, the cover-up is very important, but it’s not the whole point. What the church does is to employ men, refuse to allow them any natural outlet for their sexual desires, and then clean up after them, that is, after they have expressed those desires in unacceptable ways. Don’t forget, celibate priests are, to some extent, infantilised. Perhaps the celibate priesthood does appeal to those who are already pederasts, or have that tendency. But it would be wrong, I suspect, just to let the whole idea of a celibate priesthood off the hook here.

Nor should we avoid the question as to the extent to which protection of the celibate priesthood played a vital role in the cover-up. The catholic church has an enormous amount invested in celibacy. The whole mystique of the priesthood, the respect that it is paid, and the authority that it exercises, hangs to a great extent on celibacy. These men are martyrs, witnesses (marturioi) to their faith.

Authority and finances are also linked to celibacy. It’s harder to order men around if they are married. Their wives won’t stand for it. And the men don’t have to be paid. They can have an allowance. They are doubly and triply infantilised. It’s no wonder there’s such a mess. They’ll be in a mess again. But the church will almost certainly survive, a bit wounded, perhaps, but not mortally, not yet. Eventually, of course, if the world survives with people in it, it will die like every other religion.

“but the law was quietly changed in the meantime, dropping this charge.”

Good god! Really?!

Can you provide any links, Sigmund? I’d love to read more.

As far as I know (which isn’t very far), in the US at least there’s just a blanket prohibition on obstruction of justice – and people can be charged as accessories if they have knowledge of a crime and don’t report it. I think I mostly get that ‘knowledge’ from (cough) tv police procedurals…but I think it reflects reality.

Those Texas lawyers are of course attempting to charge the church with obstruction of justice – but the free exercise clause makes things difficult in the US.

I’ll have a look for a link when I come home from my Swedish class, Ophelia, but as far as I can recall the change happened in 1998 and most people think the omission was more a case of incompetence in writing new legislation rather than church inspired malice.

In many cases, individuals within the Catholic hierarchy have gone further than simply failing to report a crime they have knowledge about.

Some actively conspired to prevent the civil authorities from being informed, and have allowed the abuser access to more victims. Why is that not being an accessory after the fact ? Or even before the fact if they did nothing to stop further abuse.

OB– In the USA, there is usually no general legal obligation to “report” crimes. If you see your neighbor smoking pot you probably have no legal obligation to turn her in. There are some specific exceptions, applying to particular people holding particular positions or having some specific responsibilities. For example, medical personnel may be required to report evidence of child abuse or gunshot wounds. These will vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction (state by state, usually). Statutes also typically prohibit more active concealment of crimes or evidence, assistance to criminals, or failing to provide information about criminal activity when required to do so by some other legal authority (such as subpoena). These will also be defined specifically by jurisdiction.

In Australia, as far as I can tell it is not the law that one MUST report crimes like this if you are aware of it. Laws are being proposed or in place after media reporting of some very distressing cases, to force medical and welfare professionals to report any indications of such crimes.

But the Aboriginal situation makes a mockery of such ideas – the extent of rape and child rape in Aboriginal society is horrific and our welfare people don’t have anything like the will or resources needed to change it.